Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, well-structured debugging skill with excellent workflow clarity and actionability. The four-phase approach with explicit gates and the '3+ failures = architectural problem' heuristic are particularly valuable. Minor verbosity in the rationalizations and red flags sections prevents a perfect conciseness score, but the content earns its place overall.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is comprehensive but includes some redundancy (e.g., multiple tables restating similar points, repeated 'STOP' warnings). The rationalizations table and red flags section overlap significantly. Some sections could be tightened while preserving clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance with specific bash examples for diagnostic instrumentation, clear phase-by-phase instructions, and explicit criteria for each step. The multi-component debugging example is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit phases, clear success criteria table, validation checkpoints ('If fix doesn't work → STOP'), and feedback loops (3+ failures triggers architectural review). The 'Iron Law' and phase gates enforce proper sequencing. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear overview, phases broken into digestible sections, and appropriate references to supporting files (root-cause-tracing.md, defense-in-depth.md) and related skills. Navigation is straightforward with one-level-deep references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |